New "Employee Policy" on Lying to the American People

[gulliver]

So much of what Bush and the GOP have to say "amounts to a lie" but is not a direct lie. They are using the "caveat emptor" standard of the marketplace instead of an honesty standard required of employees of the people.

The definition of "lie" has been allowed to become too strict. Lately it seems that a lie has to be a specific statement at variance with what the teller knows to be factual. That definition simply allows way too much lying on the part of our employees. You can loudly state something you don't certainly know to be false, and it is not a lie, even if it really is. You can imply something with a multi-media presentation or video without saying it in words, and it is not a lie, even if it really is.

The Bushian/Rovian/GOP "caveat emptor" standard of honesty even allows breaking the Ninth Commandment as we see in the Swiftboat Liars. We also see it clearly in Bush's ubiquitous references to an implausibly evil/misguided "some" who are meant to be associated with "all" of his political rivals and critics.

So I propose a new policy for our employees. Maybe we can put it up on a bulletin board at the White House and in the Capitol. At least I think it is a good thought experiment.

Notice to Employees

Zero Tolerance Policy on Lying

The American People expect the truth from their employees. Our public servants are entrusted with our prosperity, our futures, and sometimes our very lives. Therefore, lying will not be tolerated in any form or to any degree. Any deliberate use of logical fallacy, any deliberate mischaracterization of statistics, any deliberate misrepresentation of opinion, any deliberate attempt to ignore or suppress reliable information, any deliberate attempt to convey a false impression will be regarded as amounting to lying and will be subject to disciplinary action including job termination.

I anticipate some of the Republicans might say, "What about Clinton? He got away with it. Why can't we?" I think my answer would be two-fold. First, Clinton may actually be somewhat responsible for opening the floodgates of dishonesty. He didn't create the flood of dishonesty behind the gates -- and which we are now all soaking in -- but Clinton did arguably narrow the perception of a lie. Second, Clinton got impeached. Why not Bush?

Some might say that this policy goes without saying. Sure it does.